"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

Sir Winston Churchill

Apart from the fact that Chuchill could be considered a war criminal for his leading role in several heinous acts during WWII, I tend to agree that democracy is the best form of government, though severely flawed. the main question of this thread is: what would make a democracy better?

Elements to discuss would be:
-The need for a presidential system, hereditary monarchy and others
-Do we need an election threshold? 1% 2% 5% 10%?
-Is a 'first past the post'-system fair?
-Should we ban certain political parties or ideologies? Think about the Muslim brothers or the Khmer Rouge. What laws or standards should be applicable to ban a party?
-Bicameral systems or not?
-Do we need a powerful executive?
-Can we include hereditary peers?
-Direct or indirect elections?
-Is there a need for political parties? can't we just choose people?
-What about election funds? More money accesses more media attention
-Should we allow everyone to vote? Former convicts? Legal aliens? Uneducated people? religious fanatics? How and who should decide this?
-Is plural voting fair? Should well educated, prominent people have more to say in the voting booth than uneducated ones? Where would you draw the line?
-Many more...

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. only one rule: Explain why. It's okay to have an opinion, but it's more interesting to talk about the reasoning behind it.

Dictatorship with the right Dictator is the best form of government.
However considering good dictators are hard to come by and nobody is willing to give me a country to govern I guess we will have to stick with what we have.

On the first past the post, that system isn't very fair. It's shit and outdated actually.
You need something much more like MMP. So like a European model as opposed to a US model.
Also upper house and lower house is stupid. There should only be one house.
In the US it would go something like what you have now, but what you have now would only be responsible for 50% of the house seats. The other 50% will be distributed based purely on % of total vote. So if 10% of the nation vote for you but you don't win a single state, and there are 100 seats in the house, you will get 5 seats for your party.

The election threshold should be 50%, achievable either by one party or a coalition.
The party/coalition that achieves this will then become Prime Minister (or President if you're so inclined) and get into power.
Getting into power means deciding who get's what portfolio (ie: health minister, education minister etc..).
The balance to that being that sure you can give all your own members the portfolios, but it's your ass if you fuck up...

Government spending needs to be transparent. This includes minister spending and wages.
Oh and you need a common law legal system.

Elections should be 5 years apart (yes that long).
Campaign spending needs to be transparent.
Campaigning can only be between 6months and the day before voting day.

a friend of mine suggested a party size threshhold...
so political parties can not grow to big..

that would reduce the tendency towards 2 party sytems by making sure there are more diverse parties with more diverse ideas...
that a concept i really like..

personally i kinda like the idea of having representatives be auto-pilots.. so you can overrule them with your tinny fraction of political power or move your vote anytime...
that would be direct democrasy but one that does not trake to long..

though there should be time for the representative to adress concenrs people of people moving their or overrulling his vote.
and that should be forced so you have to read get some idea of his/her thinking before you finalise your desition.

that way we could reform flaws inherent in how representative use power... (they themselves can never be trusted with such manners)
or prevent massively unpopular desition like FRA (in sweden which is kinda like prism) or Patriot act etc....

(24-07-2013 03:24 AM)earmuffs Wrote: Which is exactly what I said...
Funding campaigns is covered under donations/funding lol...

No, you said they should be made anonymously. That is not the issue.

Why not? If the parties don't know who made the contributions they can't give favors. Either that or all Donations are completely public and go into 1 huge fund that everyone draws out of (regardless of party) whatever is in the fund is what you have to spend no exceptions.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(24-07-2013 03:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: Why not? If the parties don't know who made the contributions they can't give favors. Either that or all Donations are completely public and go into 1 huge fund that everyone draws out of (regardless of party) whatever is in the fund is what you have to spend no exceptions.

Because even if the funds are made anonymously, politicians can secure funds prior to their running for office. Cut corporations out entirely.

(24-07-2013 03:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: Why not? If the parties don't know who made the contributions they can't give favors. Either that or all Donations are completely public and go into 1 huge fund that everyone draws out of (regardless of party) whatever is in the fund is what you have to spend no exceptions.

Because even if the funds are made anonymously, politicians can secure funds prior to their running for office. Cut corporations out entirely.

Good point. This could easily be fixed by like you say, cutting campaign donations out entirely. I don't see it as a big issue though as once you're in office well.. then you're in office.
However this would only be an issue where someone is not already in politics.
Once they are in politics they would then come under anonymous donations.

Good point. This could easily be fixed by like you say, cutting campaign donations out entirely. I don't see it as a big issue though as once you're in office well.. then you're in office.
However this would only be an issue where someone is not already in politics.
Once they are in politics they would then come under anonymous donations.

It can be more permanently fixed if corporations are no longer allowed to endorse any political candidate or party at any time. The issue with making donations anonymous after the elections are over is that once a politician is bought by a corporation, they will stay loyal to that corporation's interests. Even when the donations are "anonymous", the politician still knows where the money is coming from if the deal was made prior to his public office. Making them anonymous only makes it more difficult for political critics to pinpoint the issue of lobbying and does not actually remedy any problem.